Slate's Bizbox
hey, wait a minute: The conventional wisdom debunked.

The Poverty of IntegritySo what if John Ashcroft doesn't drink, dance, or swear?

By Joshua Micah Marshall
Posted Thursday, Jan. 18, 2001, at 3:00 AM ET
Illustration by Robert Neubecker

Republicans expect Senate Democrats to ignore John Ashcroft's retrograde political views and to confirm him as the next attorney general because he's a man of "integrity." "Ashcroft is known as a man of honor and integrity," writes Phyllis Schlafly. "In the many times he ran for public office, no enemies ever produced a scent of scandal." "No one can point to any breach of personal integrity," seconds Pat Robertson. Ashcroft's opponents agree. So enormous is the former senator's devotion to honor, principle, etc., say the Republicans, that nobody should oppose his nomination.

But so what? Having integrity is certainly preferable to not having it. But is it more than a minimum qualification for office? Can't we assume that the president won't appoint a hustler or scofflaw as his attorney general—that he won't send anyone who lies, take bribes, consumes illegal substances, or accepts oral sex from interns up to the Hill? Integrity might count for more if we defined it as moral completeness, balance, and maturity. But this isn't what most of the integrity floggers are talking about. And if it were, it wouldn't apply to John Ashcroft.

Ashcroft's supporters don't explicitly say that his nondrinking, nonsmoking, non-dancing ways make him especially qualified to be AG. But they do imply that his teetotalism puts the gravy on the frosting—that it provides insurance against future shenanigans. Under the Republican integrity rules, it's OK to hold moronic political views as long as you advance them with commitment and consistency.

By playing the integrity card, Republicans put off questions about Ashcroft's controversial views and appeal to senators' unwillingness to diss former colleagues. But the Republicans' integrity fixation is merely an extension of the charactercentric theory of politics they penned during the Clinton administration. They acknowledged that Clinton was talented, smart, and politically dexterous—and that most Americans endorsed his politics. But according to the Republicans, Clinton's bad character cast all these good qualities into doubt. With Ashcroft, the equation is reversed: Because he doesn't drink or smoke, his retrograde views can't be questioned. Remember how we got into this business of inquiring into people's personal morality? Character was supposed to serve as an early warning sign of future public behavior. If Clinton would cheat on his wife, the reasoning went, why wouldn't he cheat on us with the Chinese?

Republicans pilloried Clinton supporters who claimed that exemplary public behavior—good policies, compassionate politics, effective leadership, and so forth—might justify turning a blind eye to private moral failings. But today's Republicans reverse this Clintonite formula, carting out private morality as a reason to turn a blind eye to shoddy public morality. Yes, Ashcroft may have accepted a degree from a racist university, savaged Ronnie White for political gain, and pandered to neo-Confederate wing nuts. But he doesn't drink and doesn't have sex with anyone but his wife, so let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume his heart was in the right place.

If exemplary moral conduct was all we expected of public officials, we might as well recruit some Amish, give them a rulebook, and be done with it. And if integrity just means prudishness and strictness, do we really want such people in government? Jimmy Carter outpaces Bill Clinton when it comes to personal morality, but which man did a better job advancing his political agenda? And who can doubt that the fact that one failed and the other succeeded was more because of the difference than in spite of it? The rigid, purist myopia of goody-goodies may not suit an effective political leader.

Or consider another paragon of integrity: Kenneth Starr. By all accounts, he's a bit of an Ashcroft. A straight arrow, a truth teller, no carousing, no funny business. Even in the more generous reading of the excesses of his investigation, it was precisely his moralism and self-righteousness that made him lose perspective and think he was conducting a crusade for truth and morality rather than a criminal investigation. Ashcroft's defenders say the nominee's unbending moral code will make him enforce the law whether he agrees with it or not. But the Starr example points to another conclusion entirely.

The fact that Ashcroft doesn't dance doesn't mean he has extra-special-double integrity. If anything it makes him sound like a fanatic. Integrity worth the name is a statement about the full measure of a person, a matter of balance as much as morality, a polished way of saying someone is a stand-up guy. Personal propriety is a small part of the equation. We got into this integrity fixation because of a simpletons' conspiracy involving the the pundit class, anti-Clinton character theorists, and Bill Bennett. With Clinton finally gone, can't we just drop it? We used to have more artful words for people like Ashcroft: puritan, prude, bluenose, stuffed shirt. To each his own, of course. And if it works for John Ashcroft, more power to him. Should the nation's top cop be somebody who thinks that The Scarlet Letter is a users' manual for enforcing morality?

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Joshua Micah Marshall writes the Talking Points Memo.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Reader Comments From The Fray:


It seems to me that Mr. Ashcroft is being given a pass on the issue of integrity. The assumption is that he has it; the proof most often cited is that he lives by the behavioral code he espouses. That seems to be a pretty narrow definition of integrity. Doesn't it show a lack of integrity to be willing to ignore what no-one seems to dispute are deeply held beliefs on issues for the sake of holding an office? If you believe that Mr. Ashcroft is sincere in his deep opposition to abortion, for example, where is the integrity in setting that opposition aside to be Attorney General? I think that instead, and most charitably, this shows ambition or maybe opportunism, but integrity? Nah.

--nfstl

(To reply, click here.)


To nfstl:

How many judges have upheld laws in their courts that they disagreed with? Do you really think that a judge who frees a murderer or rapist because of a technicality, even though he/she knows that person is guilty, is showing a lack of integrtity? No, the judge is simply putting aside his personal feelings & convictions to a higher standard called the rule of law. Its funny how everyone is questioning Ashcroft's integrity when he is pledging to do exactly that. Any judge who is unable to do this is called to recuse him/herself. All the lies and lack of respect for the truth shown by the special interest groups involves in this doesn't change the simple fact that Ashcroft is more qualified than 90% of all the previous AG's simply on his record. As for all the groups opposing him, if you judge a person by his enemies, Ashcroft wins hands down.

--Reddog

(To reply, click here.)


Many of our founding fathers were indeed religious men, yet they set up the best system of government we have today. How many lobbyists and liberals would be howling, mumbling, and foaming at the mouth if any of those great men were appointed to a cabinet position today in 2001?

--Bud from Missouri

(To reply, click here.)


All these folks whining about how Ashcroft is a victim of religious discrimination and ideologically motivated attacks, and urging that deference is shown to the President Elect's picks, are defending the wrong man. As a senator, Ashcroft made it a point to block President Clinton's appointments for ideological reasons. Case in point, blocking the appointment of the ambassador to Luxembourg because he was gay. Cripes, Luxembourg! Who the heck cares about the personal life of a guy we send off to Luxembourg? Anyway, everybody knows (for that matter, they knew long ago) that Ashcroft will be confirmed, but it isn't hurting anything to let the temporary committee chairs strut around and have their paybacks, and it's only what Ashcroft would do if the shoe were on the other foot.

--Nate

(To reply, click here.)


The legal profession acknowledges that personal ethics bleed over into professional conduct, and its ethics regulations, though aimed at professional behavior, are calibrated precisely to help individuals avoid the most troubling circumstances. Personal integrity matters in law enforcement; ask any disbarred attorney or impeached judge. A law enforcement officer cannot, in contrast to a politician, get away with the sort of public/private split Mitchell suggests. And the AG is, after all, a law enforcement officer, no matter his or her input on Supreme Court nominations or control over DOJ resources.

This is not, obviously, to say that personal integrity should trump retrograde politics. I note in particular Senator Leahy's quite incisive questioning with regard to the Hormel nomination, which is perhaps the most troubling of all Ashcroft's indelicateness: he is unabashedly an anti-gay bigot, and rejected a nominee strictly on that basis.

Whatever one thinks of his political opportunism in the White nomination, or his catering to the kooks at Southern Partisan during his horribly misguided presidential run, those were clearly cases of political opportunism; poorly chosen, and in questionable taste, but not evidence of deep-seated racism or longing for the Confederacy. But his clear bigotry against gays indicates a real feeling on his part that they are not entitled to equal treatment, and that ought to give even some of his Republican supporters pause.

--Christopher Schepp

(To reply, click here.)

(1/18)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Let the Oil Deals Flow
Raad Alkadiri | Congress should not interfere in the oil industry's contract negotiations with the Iraqi government.